JLS (X Factor Group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
JLS is a boyband that finished 2nd in the music competiton, The X Factor (UK). After a discussion, comprimising of three editors, their page was redirected to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5). A week later, Eoghan Quigg, who finished third in the same competition (lower than JLS), had his page considered for deletion. The result was keep.
- has won an Urban Music Award, is notable under Criterion 9 of WP:MUSICBIO and are about to be signed to record deal with Simon Cowell [1]. They are also the only X Factor 2nd-place finalists not to have their own page. I ask that the redirect is removed. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UNREMOVE REDIRECT Can i add other second placed finalists were signed and as it was announced they had been signed, there articles were created not releasing a single yet so why should JLS be treated any differently? I say its because Eoghan fans want to have something to look at to see whats going on with his career, and JLS fans will want to see the same. I say unremove this redirect. I'm also going to add that two members of the band were famous before being on the show (TV) Marvin was in a band that created one album and 4 singles and was a regular actor on Holby City. And Ortise was on fun song factory as a regular.86.168.5.166 (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn redirect because JLS are just as notable as Eoghan Quigg. Note, page needs to be re-created at JLS (Jack the Lad Swing) and not JLS (X Factor Group). JS (chat) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close as the article has not been deleted. The article was merely turned into a redirect, and DRV is not for content disputes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, no deletion to review. Anyone can take the normal editorial action of unredirecting the page. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I was told here [2] it had to go to DRV due to it being redirected per AFD discussion. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page may be a redirect, but this was done as a result of the AfD. Anyone undoing the revert will be going against the concensus reached at the AfD, just as they would if they recreated the page following deletion. If not here, where is one supposed to force a review of an AfD? Ros0709 (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The closure was a bold/speedy redirect by a non-admin on the same day as the article was listed at AFD, therefore it carries no more or less weight than any other redirecting. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, re-nomination may be the best option. Ros0709 (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The redirection of this article is protected so that only admins may edit or move the page, hence the request here. This was done due to the consensus of the AFD which mandated redirection, was ignored by the requestor and the article restored. The AFD was quite recent, so any interest in overturning the redirect does require consensus through DRV process, unless the admin who closed the AFD discussion reverts their close. Having said that, the arguments for unprotecting and unredirecting this article are all weithin the purview of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and have no merit, with respect to overruling a properly determined consensus rom AFD. I recommend that the interested editors create a userspace draft and request a review if and when they feel it is ready for scrutiny to determine if it is proper to move to mainspace. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 12:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with you up to the "properly determined consensus". A non-admin boldly redirecting after 14 hours of an AFD isn't one of those. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn redirect As I see it, bottom line here is that Eoghan Quigg's article was kept solely on the grounds of him having placed in a music competition, nothing to do with releases or percieved level of fame. When this is taken into consideration, the fact that JLS placed higher in the competition than Quigg, should be enough on its own to have the article reinstated. Sky83 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:WAX. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I get where you're coming from but that's not exactly the point I was making, I was drawing attention to the reasons Quigg's article was kept, and those reasons are valid reasons for the reinstatement of this one. I apologise if you thought I was simply saying that because Quigg has an article, JLS should, perhaps I should've extended my comment, it was kinda a hit and run thing as I was on my way out the door at the time! Moreover, I was just saying that because JLS placed in a music competition, this makes an article on them valid and that if this point wasn't accepted for JLS, it probably shouldn't have been accepted for Quigg. That was where my comparison came in. Sky83 (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just pointing out that WP:WAX does not say never compare with other AFDs it actually says "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." It does also say use this with caution. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|